On 3/06/2011 superstu wrote:>Maybe what we need is a campground host system like in use at buffalo.>They diplomatically advise people of the no firewood collection policy>and sell firewood and perhaps collect camp fees or whatever. They could>also be issued with a hammer to resolve any late night antisocial behaviour>issues.

I can certainly understand why the committee would consider halving the fire season the only realistic way of reducing firewood collecting. That said, selling firewood (& kindling) a la Buffalo **may** cause a similar reduction in collecting and I'd rather see that approach tried first. Trouble is, climbers as a group tend to prefer to do things on the cheap... If we all paid our camp fees and brought our own wood with us, the park would probably be better serviced (Edit: May be better serviced?) and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Obviously, banning firewood collection has not changed enough people's behaviour. That means that having been given the choice to regulate themselves, climbers have again failed abysmally and new measures must be sought.

For those who are also unaware, fires are only to be lit in fireplaces provided (see above link). The stone circles appearing everywhere are not the fireplaces provided. Especially those ones that I keep dismantling outside of the camping area itself. Again, I point out the dismal failure of climbers to regulate themselves.

Whilst I am on a rant about crap self management, the bushes around the campsites are not the toilets. Feel free to pee behind them, but if you feel a need to use paper, the real loos are those buildings beneath the pines and beside the gums car park. The little white paper butterflies circling the pines are totally out of order. And the camping ares is inside the posts, not outside them, nor on the other side of the road, by the bins, in the picnic area, by the turn off to the gums and so forth. And the road along the base is closed, even if people have been navigating a new road by driving around all the washed away bits.

As seems to be distressingly common, climbers are unable to act like adults and curb their behaviour/desires/laziness in order to protect our climbing and camping areas and to help to maintain access. For those who have forgotton, HRCC, Tourism Vic and PV have a proposal in their hands to increase regulation of the campsite and push people into a private facility. I have heard on the grapevine that PV find managing camping at the Pines to be a pain in the arse and they would prefer it to be closed. If you want to continue to fuel their arguments for further regulation, continue to breach the current ones

If you are cold, put more clothes on. Wrap yourself in your sleeping bag. Go to bed. Crowd everyone into the biggest tent to socialise. Access to fires for a few less months a year is not a great loss. Access to the camping and climbing is.

On 3/06/2011 crazyjohn wrote:>Thanks Louise for sharing this. I am curious as to the effect of this 'decision'.>Is this contestable?
Of course. You can make a contest out of anything. Might not be much of a contest though.

Banning fires for>reasons of diversity in the recreation area runs counter to the spirit>and letter of the plan.
Nonsense. Having a campfire isn't "recreation". If anything, it's de-creation.

>I would like to contact the committee directly. Please let me know who>I can speak with. Thanks!
Well, I guess Louise is probably a member herself, so you already have. And at the time of the publication of his great book on Arapiles, I think Keith Lockwood might have been the chairman. So the "committee" you seek is made up of volunteers, locals who have been involved for decades discussing and working towards what they see is in the best interests of the the park and all those who use it. Maybe you could move to Natimuk and join them if you want to speak to them directly.

>Of course. You can make a contest out of anything. Might not be much of>a contest though.

Thanks Louise, I mean bruce. I guess as you get older it is more difficult to determine your own gender. Spare me your pseudo-environmentalist posturing. Fire as de-creation? WTF?

This is exactly what I am worried will happen with the CCT. Self-important, hypocritical yuppies (like you) who claim to be interested in conservation can pat themselves on the back after coming to the very, very difficult decision of banning fires in the interest of 'the environment' , as they jump back in their cars and drive home to Nati and crank up the heat. Im glad you have made your own obtuse position on this clear so I know how to approach you in the future.

On 4/06/2011 Wendy wrote:>For those people who seem to be unaware, firewood collection in the park>is already banned and has been for a long time. See http://www.parkweb.vic.gov.au/1park_d>splay.cfm?park=148 if you don't believe me.>>Obviously, banning firewood collection has not changed enough people's>behaviour. That means that having been given the choice to regulate themselves,>climbers have again failed abysmally and new measures must be sought.>>For those who are also unaware, fires are only to be lit in fireplaces>provided (see above link). The stone circles appearing everywhere are>not the fireplaces provided. Especially those ones that I keep dismantling>outside of the camping area itself. Again, I point out the dismal failure>of climbers to regulate themselves.>>Whilst I am on a rant about crap self management, the bushes around the>campsites are not the toilets. Feel free to pee behind them, but if you>feel a need to use paper, the real loos are those buildings beneath the>pines and beside the gums car park. The little white paper butterflies>circling the pines are totally out of order. And the camping ares is inside>the posts, not outside them, nor on the other side of the road, by the>bins, in the picnic area, by the turn off to the gums and so forth. And>the road along the base is closed, even if people have been navigating>a new road by driving around all the washed away bits.>>As seems to be distressingly common, climbers are unable to act like adults>and curb their behaviour/desires/laziness in order to protect our climbing>and camping areas and to help to maintain access. For those who have forgotton,>HRCC, Tourism Vic and PV have a proposal in their hands to increase regulation>of the campsite and push people into a private facility. I have heard>on the grapevine that PV find managing camping at the Pines to be a pain>in the arse and they would prefer it to be closed. If you want to continue>to fuel their arguments for further regulation, continue to breach the>current ones>>If you are cold, put more clothes on. Wrap yourself in your sleeping bag.>Go to bed. Crowd everyone into the biggest tent to socialise. Access to>fires for a few less months a year is not a great loss. Access to the>camping and climbing is. >
All I was going to say and more Wendy!
Besides the fact that these discussions and observations have been going on for a long, long time, the information is available on signs in the parks, on the websites, on forums.

I am a firm believer in education being the way forward always and as noted on a earlier thread I started about code of conduct for climbers,for self regulation, my aim is to have the CliffCare website contain all of this information hopefully in one place. Having said that, my faith in the idea that it will change a huge amount is far from what I would call solid.
On that particular thread, the most contentious issue was campfires and firewood collection to fuel them. So amongst all of those people that rarely read the information at the parks and on the parks that they visit,(and thats your responsibility) I would imagine judging by that response, that there are a huge amount of people that are intent on having the fires regardless of any of the rules because a) they see them as a nonsense rule b) they want and like to have fires and their little fireplace and collection of a small amount of wood won't make a difference.

The fire rules in parks re campfires and collection of firewood are not up for debate. They are not a rule that PV or whatever landmanager, is trying to get into a management plan like for instance permits for climbing.
This can be discussed, opposed and in great outcomes(Mt Coolum) be dismissed.

The campfires and wood collection rules didn't stop anyone from having campfires - it just required people to have a little more forward thought. What they did try to do was to look at the bigger picture(and this is not just about climbers) and know that people coming into the outdoors and using facilities is never going to get less, just more. Therefore proactive measures need to take place.

Proactive measures never seem to be popular because it requires people to make some effort and look forward, take more into account than just themselves and that particular moment in time and more often than not, accept something that they would probably prefer not to. (cont)

(cont)
The Arapiles advisory committe as with all committees, has a diverse range of people and opinions and from past discussions I have had on various subjects with members of it, these discussions are never taken lightly. You can be pretty sure that one of the reasons that Araps is looking quite good in some of its areas is because of the constant work and observations of people on this committee and other community groups and their willingness to put forward rules or processes that are going to prove unpopular but ARE of a benefit to the park in the long term. It's not just because the campers have thought to do the right thing - if it was left totally up to them, the park would be a lot more trashed.Things such as firewood sale, campground hosts etc are and have all been on the table as well. And who knows, somewhere in the future, something might be able to be worked out there. But as simple as these things sound, they are not in the logistical sense, easy to set up and to keep working.

Short of having absolutely massive signs in every corner of the park, entrance etc, it really is up to campers, climbers whoever to make a little more effort for the greater good and to work with the rules that we have that are not debatable ones. And I find it difficult to understand that smart people really can't differentiate between the reality of a situation as opposed to what they would like to have. This campground campfire rule change need never have happened. And you have to ask yourself, will we be having this discussion again when somewhere in the near future, a possible outcome of people once again, deciding it's a nonsense rule, is that the the mount ring road is closed permanently. Cos despite those big arse signs, people seem to know better and are hell bent on creating a new road right next to the badly rutted one.

>Thanks Louise, I mean bruce.>>This is exactly what I am worried will happen with the CCT. Self-important,>hypocritical yuppies (like you)
Sticks and stones, crazyjohn (or is that Fisher, if you want to refer to people by their last names). Fairly typical behaviour from your ilk who can't have a reasonable discussion without being abusive.

who claim to be interested in conservation>can pat themselves on the back after coming to the very, very difficult>decision of banning fires in the interest of 'the environment' , as they>jump back in their cars and drive home to Nati and crank up the heat.
FYI, apart from once mid-winter visit, I have always camped at the Mount, adding up to about 20 visits over a 30 year period. I guess I might have at least as reasonable a perspective on what's good for the place, and the environment, as you do.>

As was mentioned above, if self-regulation had worked there wouldn't be any need for a shortening of the fire period. The trouble is that a lot of campers, especially the long term ones, are bottom feeding parasites who never do the right thing, don't want to pay their way and have fcuked it for the rest of us.

I don't understand much of the socialising at Arapiles. After doing two 120+m climbs per day, I can barely cook after sorting the rack under torchlight and packing for the next day - don't you guys ever want to go to bed?
What's with the out-of-tune guitar/banjo/ukelele twanging at 11pm - didn't you crank hard the day before?
Who has time for a fire? Could you please just slump into your sleeping bag and write out/photograph notes from the guidebook as you drift off. Nice.

I love sitting around a fire, but I hate many aspects that go with the fire, and this is enough for me to now be a vocal opponent against fires in all situations that aren't litterally life or death. If friends are having a fire I'll sit and enjoy it, but I'll always advocate having it smaller, and never add or gather wood myself. I tend to guilt trip people who gather wood from around the Pines too.

Destruction of habitat is just one gripe I have with fires. Leaving black scars and piles of ash around the place is another. I can't express how angry I get when I do a walk in a remote area, and the only sign of others having previously been there is some inconsiderate bastards firecircle. In my experience, most groups of rowdy dickheads tend to focus their activites around a disproportionately large bonfire. I daresay that banning fires would remove their focal point, and, as a result, would lead to fewer nights stuck lying in my tent wishing the obnoxious bastards on the other side of the Pines would STFU.

Out of interest, how many people who are against reducing or banning fires at Araps are in favour of the carbon tax?
Anyone who is for the carbon tax and is worried about climate change but continues to have a fire is hypocritical to say the least.

There was a time late 70's when you could ring the ranger and he would leave wood at your nominated spot. So we are going to ban campfires but the government is going to control burn all parks on a 5 to 10 year rotation to reduce fuel load !!!!! bad luck native animals every burn .

Alternatively wood could be collected and supplied for a charge to campers . It could employ work for some climbers , yes ban individual collection and enforce the payment of camping and wood fees but the wood is going to be burnt anyway better to provide winter warmth and cheer than a 2 day burst every few years . Burning of the wood produces less greenhouse gas than letting it decay .

1000 acres there probably produces several tousand tons per year and it is sustainable . rarely is all fallen wood collected so habitat is left behind . Personally we grow in excess of 200 tonnes per year and utilise it to warm 3 houses and we have wood to spare
A ban is only an excuse to have lax management of this resource and park as long as there is no risk fire escaping camp fires .

Arapiles was much nicer before the wildfire went through and caused all the wattle (fire weed) growth around the base of the cliffs banning fires will lead to more likelyhood of further such fire or the regular cotrolled fuel reduction burns .

>>Destruction of habitat is just one gripe I have with CLIMBING. Leaving CHALK around the place is another. I can't express how>angry I get when I do a walk in a remote area, and the only sign of others>having previously been there is some inconsiderate bastards CLEANED UP ROCK FACE.>In my experience, most groups of rowdy dickheads tend to focus their activites>around STEEP CLIFFS. I daresay that banning CLIMBING>would remove their focal point, and, as a result, would lead to BLAH BLAH BLAH...

>>Out of interest, how many people who DRIVE TO Araps are in favour of the carbon tax?>Anyone who is for the carbon tax and is worried about climate change but>continues to DRIVE TO ARAPILES WHEN THEY COULD JUST AS EASILY STAY AT HOME, AFTER ALL IT'S NOT AS IF THEY REALLY NEED TO GO CLIMBING AS A MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH is hypocritical to say the least.

On 4/06/2011 Marssan wrote:>...There's no good reason to have a fire at Araps anyway, if they banned>fires outright i wouldn't miss it for a second and my downy would smell>a lot nicer.

There are a number of us, at least two that I know of, who like having a fire because they enjoy the fireside ambience and abide by the rules, having fires in the pits and bringing their own wood. We also have quiet, philosophical conversations around said fire.

I'm with you on the smell front though, everytime I smell a campfire it reminds me of my burnt out living room...